Carolina Aggregate v. Buffington

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Carolina
Aggregate Products, LLC, Respondent,

v.

Buffington
& Smith Contracting Company, LLP, John E. Buffington, Carlotta B. Hood,
Safeco Insurance Company, and Palmetto Paving Corporation, Defendants,

of whom
Buffington & Smith Contracting Company, LLP, John E. Buffington &
Carlotta B. Hood, are, Appellants,

Appeal From Horry County

William E. Lawson, Special Referee

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-078

Submitted November 1, 2010 – Filed
February 24, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Carlotta B. Hood, pro se, of
Gillsville, for Appellants.

Daniel J. MacDonald, of Myrtle Beach, and Philip
Coleman Thompson, of Conway,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: John
E. Buffington and Carlotta B. Hood (collectively Appellants) appeal the special
referee's judgment in favor of Carolina Aggregate Products.[1] 
We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to the issue of a limit
on the amount of the guaranty, this issue was not raised until the motion to
alter or amend and thus is not properly before this court.  See Peterson
v. Porter, 389 S.C. 148, 152, 697 S.E.2d 656, 658 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding
appellant failed to preserve issue for this court's review where appellants
raised the employer-employee argument in his motion to reconsider but failed to
raise it during the summary judgment proceedings); Kiawah Prop. Owners Group
v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 359 S.C. 105, 113, 597 S.E.2d 145, 149 (2004)
(stating a party may not raise an issue in a motion to reconsider, alter, or
amend a judgment that could have been presented prior to the judgment).

2. As to the issue of the
amount of the debt, Buffington & Smith is no longer a party to this appeal
and Appellants, as guarantors, cannot assert Buffington & Smith's defenses
to the debt.  Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Lanford, 313 S.C.
540, 544, 443 S.E.2d 549, 551 (1994) (holding a guarantor is not a party to a
note and cannot avail himself of defenses based on the note).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, KONDUROS, and
LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

[1] Buffington & Smith Contracting Company, LLP, also appealed the special
referee's order.  However, after the final briefs were filed, counsel for Buffington
& Smith and Appellants withdrew.  On April 1, 2010, this court dismissed
the appeal as to Buffington & Smith when it failed to obtain new counsel. 

[2] We decide this case without oral argument
pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.